I think part of the problem is distinguishing "module declarations" (which don't have a phase) from "module instantiations" (which are normally phase-specific).
I want an adjective for a declaration that describes a treatment of its instances. "Phaseless" is bad, because no module declaration has a phase, but "all-phase" has the same problem. "Phase-invariant" could work, although that sounds like a property that module declarations might have even if they're not treated specially. How about "phase-collapsing"? That suggests more (to me) that something special is happening. At Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:53:14 -0500, Ray Racine wrote: > all-phase modules > static modules > static-phase modules > phase-invariant modules > > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Vincent St-Amour <stamo...@ccs.neu.edu>wrote: > > > At Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:59:01 -0500, > > mfl...@racket-lang.org wrote: > > > 899a327 Matthew Flatt <mfl...@racket-lang.org> 2013-02-26 14:14 > > > : > > > | add experimental support for "phaseless" modules > > > | > > > > After reading the docs, I find the name "phaseless" confusing. IIUC, > > these modules are not special because they have no phase, but rather > > because they're the same at all phases. > > > > Would "pan-phase", "omni-phase" or "cross-phase" be an accurate > > description? > > > > Vincent > > _________________________ > > Racket Developers list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > > _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
